2002 (9) TMI 348 - AT - Customs

Imported cotton cloth classified under Chapter Heading 52.08 instead of 59.11 due to form. Appeal rejected.

VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI

VARDHMAN ACRYLICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 604 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading 5208.00 or 59.11, Requirement of a specific license for importAnalysis:1. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of imported 100% cotton cloth bleached plain weave under Heading 52.08, as they were in running length and not cut to any specific size or shape. The goods were excluded from classification under Heading 59.11 due to Note 7 to Chapter 59, leading to the rejection of the appeal.2. The appellants imported goods described as 100% cotton cloth bleached and claimed customs classification under Chapter Heading 5208.20. Authorities classified the goods under Chapter Heading 5208.00, leading to confiscation and redemption on payment of fines. The appellants argued for classification under Chapter Heading 59.11, stating no license was required.3. The appellant's counsel argued that the imported goods were specifically manufactured for use in filtration of polymer, not ordinary cotton cloth. Referring to Note 8 of Section 11, it was contended that the goods were not covered under Chapters 50 to 55 and 60, supporting classification under Chapter Heading 59.11 for filter cloth.4. The counsel emphasized that the goods were filter cloth designed for a specific purpose, hence classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.11 without requiring a specific license. The appeal sought allowance based on the specialized nature of the imported goods.5. The Respondent's representative argued that the goods were correctly classified under Chapter Heading 52.08 based on the Bill of Entry and invoice descriptions as 100% cotton cloth bleached plain weave. The contention that the goods were filter cloth for a specific purpose was deemed untenable as they were in running length without specific shape or form.6. The Respondent reiterated that the goods were rightly classified under Chapter sub-heading 52.08, emphasizing the absence of indications at clearance for classification under Chapter sub-heading 59.11. Expert opinions were deemed irrelevant as the goods were not presented in a specific construction or made-up form for such classification.7. The Tribunal deliberated on the need for a specific license for import based on the classification under Chapter Heading 52.08 or 59.11. The goods, described as 100% cotton cloth in running length without specific shape or form, were pivotal in determining the necessity of a license for import.8. Expert opinions suggesting the cloth's potential use as a filter were considered, but the classification was based on the goods' presentation at clearance. Since the imported goods were 100% cotton cloth in running length, they were rightly classified under Chapter Heading 52.08, emphasizing the form at the time of clearance.9. Referring to a previous judgment, the Tribunal distinguished a case involving specific shape and construction of goods from the present scenario. The judgment highlighted that the expert opinion's relevance was contingent on the goods' presentation at clearance, leading to the classification under Chapter Heading 52.08.10. Considering the arguments and findings, the Tribunal affirmed the need for a specific license for the imported goods under Chapter Heading 52.08. The impugned order was upheld, rejecting the appeal based on the goods' form at clearance and the absence of a requirement for classification under Chapter Heading 59.11.